Marietta City Council continued its ongoing discussion of the 2025 budget by talking about the Marietta Municipal Court budget Wednesday evening, a conversation that at times became heated between the municipal court judge and the city’s director of budget and finance.

During a Wednesday evening Finance Committee meeting Marietta Municipal Court Judge Randall Jedlink expressed disagreement over the accuracy of council’s budget numbers for the court.

“When we started out with this exercise, the court was $262,000 over what our total was,” Ward 1 Councilman and Finance Committee Chair Michael Scales said.

Ward did not provide information on the amount council was showing the court was asking for from the general fund at the beginning of the budget process.

Jedlink disagreed with this statement.

“So here’s the problem,” Jedlink said. “When the court has a budget and we had this discussion before … the problem is you guys allocate money with numbers we have no idea where they come from and you can’t allocate money to the budget of the court because the court is a co-equal branch of government that you are legally obligated to fund. So when it’s treated as an allocation you start going in, you start messing with numbers, which you are not even legally allowed to do, and then you come up with a number that got everyone in a panic.”

He said there is no increase at all in the court’s budget from 2024 to 2025 and there might even be a reduction.

“It’s because we’re not following the rules and laws of how to budget for a court and that is where the misunderstanding is coming from,” Jedlink said.

He pointed out examples of where council’s information in the 2024 budget worksheet for the municipal court is different from the actual amount they need in the budget for the court.

Jedlink said the amount the city set in the budget for wages and salaries is $591,095, but the amount actually needed is $603,694.

“Here’s the big one … I don’t know where you came up with the number of $172,922 for (retirement), the real number’s $109,546,” Jedlink said. “These numbers go on like this.”

He said most of the differences between the court’s numbers and council’s numbers are a couple of thousand dollars.

He said the ask from the general fund for the court is $1.138 million but the city’s numbers show it is $1.22 million. He also said the ask for 2025 is pretty much on par with asks from 2023.

According to the budget worksheet for the municipal court, the actual amount that was taken from the general fund and given to the municipal court for 2023 was $996,459.37.

Jedlink said the fear of there being an increase in the request from the general fund for the municipal court is unfounded. He also said the allocation number council came up with “got pulled out of thin air.”

At-Large Councilman Jon Grimm responded to this claim by Jedlink, stating that the numbers were based on something and then he asked what council’s allocation was based on.

This is where the disagreement between Jedlink and City Director of Budget and Finance Mitch Dimmerling started. Jedlink said he thinks council took numbers from the previous year and imputed whatever they thought the numbers should be while factoring in raises, insurance and other things. He pointed out the amount the city had for retirement again, stating he didn’t know where it came from.

“That number came from you guys actually,” Dimmlering said.

Dimmerling said he got the numbers for the court’s budget from Court Administrator Jason Hamilton.

Jedlink said the information from Hamilton might have been initial numbers and then Dimmerling and Jedlink started to talk at the same time.

Scales stopped them and said they needed to speak one at a time.

“I did not calculate those numbers he was disputing, those came from them,” Dimmerling said after Scales gave him the floor first.

Hamilton responded as well, stating in April or May when the city was making adjustments to the budget there was an amendment to the court’s original budget where they were giving some money back to the jail fund. He said when the court spoke to Scales about this he said if they gave the money back the intention was not to give it back in 2025 too.

“My best guess is this number, the allocation is probably where our reduced budget was in May,” Hamilton said.

Grimm pointed out that to council there is a disparity in the numbers and everyone needs to understand that.

“But it’s not … if you look at the revised numbers … I think it’s almost exactly, maybe within almost $1,000 of exactly where it was last year and that’s despite 8% or 9% inflation,” Jedlink said.

Council President Susan Vessels asked Jedlink why the 2024 amended budget amount for salaries and wages is $467,000 and the amount the court needs for 2025 is higher.

Jedlink said some of the savings that they created for 2024 by not filling positions and other changes are replicable for 2025 and some aren’t.

She pointed out the 2023 salaries and wages were $487,000 and the amount council figured they needed was $591,000 so that is a little over a $100,000 difference and asked where that is coming from.

“Here’s the long and short of it, the court has cut as much as it can … I think it should at least be said what’s the court doing to fix this problem,” Hamilton said in answer to Vessel’s question.

He said costs for the municipal court are average and in sync with the city and he listed some changes the court has made that he said will increase the amount of receipts the general fund gets from the court, including adding a full-time magistrate which will reduced the costs associated with acting judges, adding a magistrate fee, adding a bailiff fee and increasing some other fees.

He said some of the spike in the cost of salaries and wages is related to his salary because he found out he could not use grant funds to cover his salary as he had for 2024, he has to be paid through the general fund. He also said all the fee increases will be seen in the general fund in the future.

Jedlink brought up that “the actual cost of running the court is significantly lower” than the amount that is being asked for from the general fund.

“Over time the money goes back in,” Jedlink said, adding he would be able to estimate the amount going into the general fund better at the beginning of the new year.

He said it costs the general fund somewhere in the neighborhood of $400,000 to $500,000 to run the court after factoring in the amount the court gives back to the general fund.

Jedlink turned the conversation back to the numbers Hamilton emailed Dimmerling, stating that the court never submitted to council the numbers council used to determine how much the court needs from the general fund for 2025.

“Now did (Jason Hamilton) email back and forth?” Jedlink said. “Probably, but those numbers were never set in stone. Those might have been projections from April. Those weren’t real numbers, but no one bothered to contact us and say ‘Hey, can you submit an actual budget for us to be able to discuss.'”

Dimmerling reiterated that he received the numbers he used to determine the budget amount for the court from Hamilton.

The conversation turned to discussing other funds that are not the general fund that contribute to funding the court.

At the end of the meeting Scales thanked Jedlink for coming and discussing the budget and he asked him to send the updated budget information for the court to all the council members.

The next time the budget will be discussed is at a Finance Committee meeting at 5:30 p.m. Nov. 18 in Room 10 of the Marietta Armory. The topics set so far for discussion are increasing permit fees and the budget itself.